This article seeks to reconcile a fundamental normative tension that underlies most international reconstruction efforts in war-torn societies: on the one hand, substantial outside interference in the domestic affairs of such societies may seem desirable to secure political stability, set up inclusive governance structures, and protect basic human rights; on the other hand, such interference is inherently paternalistic-and thus problematic-since it limits the policy options and broader freedom of maneuver of domestic political actors.
I argue that for paternalistic interference in foreign countries to be justified, it needs to be strictly proportional to domestic impediments to self-government and basic rights protection. Based on this claim, I model different degrees of interference that are admissible at particular stages of the postwar reconstruction process. Extrapolating from John Rawls's Law of Peoples, I suggest that full-scale international trusteeship can be justified only so long as conditions on the ground remain "outlaw"—that is, so long as security remains volatile and basic rights, including the right to life, are systematically threatened. Once basic security has been reestablished, a lower degree of interference continues to be justified, until new domestic governance structures become entirely self-sustaining. During this second phase of postwar reconstruction, external actors ideally ought to share responsibility for law-enforcement and administration with domestic authorities, which implies in practice that domestic and international officials should jointly approve all major decisions. I discuss various approximations of such shared responsibility in recent international peace operations and speculate about how best to ensure a timely transition toward full domestic ownership.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2009 (23.2) • Review
Briefly Noted
This section contains a round-up of recent notable books in the field of international affairs.
Summer 2009 (23.2) • Essay
The Global War on Terror: A Narrative in Need of a Rewrite
This essay focuses on how the global war on terror was constructed and how it has set down deep institutional roots both in government and ...
Summer 2009 (23.2) • Feature
Moral Responsibilities and the Conflicting Demands of Jus Post Bellum [Abstract]
The inclusion of jus post bellum in just war theory may be justified. But, according to Evans, it becomes problematic when confronted with tenets of "...